Looks good so far except that i'm confused as to how Melo can be as high as a 92 with Kobe being only 93? Also 75 seems high for a rookie like Barnes but it really depends on what their individual attributes are.

Hmmm... I dont know about kobe. Melos rating is a little too overrated for me, especially since i am a melo fan, i think he should Be around 88 like last year. Maybe theyre basing him off of his olympic performance

Couldn't care less about overall ratings. I never base any of my trade/signing/rotation decisions based on overall ratings. The skills and abilities breakdown, even on non-scouted players, is a much better indication of what a player's strengths and weaknesses are. Would you sign a center because he's a 75 if he's crap at all that matters for a center?

Give me players that play like their real-life counterparts, that have similar strengths and weaknesses, and that have the right signature skills, and I'm all set.

If 2K wanted to do something useful, they could give us the Skills breakdown for each player (Inside, Outside, Athleticism, Basketball I.Q., Rebounding, etc.) Overall is just a gimmick to give people something to fight over until the game is released. And the reactions they've got already are quite revealing.

Leftos wrote:Couldn't care less about overall ratings. I never base any of my trade/signing/rotation decisions based on overall ratings. The skills and abilities breakdown, even on non-scouted players, is a much better indication of what a player's strengths and weaknesses are.

Second that. It's kinda amusing how after all these years a lot of people still miserably fail to understand that the overall rating alone doesn't tell you much of anything about the player and how good he'll really be to use. A guy with 50 overall can be very useful if, for example, he's a great 3-point shooter and has a quick release (while, very likely, being really cheap if you're playing Association). A guy with 70-75 overall can be mediocre at everything, not really able to do anything well and therefore worse than a 50 overall player. I don't get how the overall can be the only thing someone would care about when it comes to ratings/attributes and post things like:

Leftos wrote:Would you sign a center because he's a 75 if he's crap at all that matters for a center?

Well, overall ratings are based on their position. So for a center to be rated 75 overall then he'd HAVE to be good at what matters for a center otherwise he wouldn't be rated that high. I.e. if a PG had the exact same attributes as the proverbial 75 rated center then he'd probably be 58 overall. But i see your point, and i agree, overall ratings are nothing but a vague reflection of their attributes.

Still, sometimes overall ratings are a pretty accurate reflection, so it's surprising to see Melo at 92 and Kobe at 93.

Nick, even so, overall is just one rating, and tells you almost nothing about the player, other than a vague evaluation. I mean, are you just trying to sign a "good player" at Center? Or are you trying to fill a specific need your team has, like someone good at defending the paint, or at fighting for boards, or someone with a great offensive post game? It's all down to how much thought you put behind things like that. People that just look for good players may care about overall. Me? I sort by the skill category first, check out the Skills and Abilities tab, and then take a look at overall as well.

I wouldn't get as excited or as disappointed as what I'm seeing the overall reaction being (bam!). I don't care what the overall is for one of my favorite players, don't care even if it's lower than another player's. It's how these players play themselves and against each other on court, in the actual gameplay, that matters to me. And then there's new stuff like Signature Skills to think about.

I completely agree that the OVR means little, I believe it's meant just to be a general gauge of talent. For example 90+ are Superstars, 85+ All-Stars and so on. For example Tony Parker and Stephen Curry are roughly the same rating, though depending on your playstyle, one could clearly be dramatically more effective than the other because their strengths and weaknesses are very different. And that's what it always comes down to, user playstyle, always the biggest and often least accounted for variable.

But I do agree, Melo does seem high. Kobe and Melo comparison is difficult due to SG/SF, but even 3 points between Melo and Durant seems a little generous in Melo's favor, considering they're both scoring SF's at heart.

The @NBA2KInsider twitter account posted a summary of the ratings so far, asking which players are rated too high and too low. I guess 2K wants to show they're going to value community involvement more than previous years.

They're very generous with their rookie ratings. Thomas Robinson and Harrison Barnes are gonna end up being superstars a few years into 2k13's Association mode, probably. (Which aint gonna happen in the NBA!)I can't wait to go through the rookie players' individual ratings in 2k13 and compare them to my 2k12 draft class.

The overall ratings are meaningless for this reason and this reason only: You can adjust them any way you like. Please raise a ruckus for something that matters, like give us the F NBA 2K11's Blacktop Mode already!

But then comes 2K with its NBA 2K Insider asking the users' opinion on the revealed ratings, which, supposedly, could be early feedback for a zero-day roster update.

But is "how is that player's overall rating?" a valid question? If users say it's too low, what would you increase? Makes more sense to complain about specific parts of a player's game that aren't realistic, rather than say "OHMIGOSH THAT PLAYER IS OVERRATED EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT APPLIES TO THIS YEAR'S GAME".

Or at least tell us the formula for calculating the OVR. How tendencies play into it (which they probably don't but should), what the key attributes are for position, how/if potential, weight, height, skin color plays a part in it.

They truly are meaningless, I mean, I think most of the people who play the game know the strengths of each of the main guys in the league, so really how does one number change the way you pick players for your team? If I need a shooter, and don't have a particular guy in mind, I'll sort by the shooting attributes, and then look at other factors afterwords. Likewise for rebounding, or a defense-focused player. I rarely ever look at OVR unless I'm glancing at scrubs in a trade.

People have always liked to talk about ratings. Even though there is no legit formula for it, everyone thinks they know what they're talking about. Majority of it is based on stats which are just as deceiving as they are telling. Just like which market you play in depends on how much exposure you get (example Jeremy Lin). I can make a great case on how Rondo should be rated in the low 80's based on several factors and then you can have someone make a case on why he should be rated 90. (I would like to see if all the Rondo fanboys would be on his nuts if he played on the bucks or a team of that insignificance )

We could use Eureqa to determine the formula. If someone gives me a spreadsheet with complete Player Ratings and each one's overall, I could use Eureqa to approximate the formula that calculates the Overall rating for each position.

EDIT: You can get player ratings from REditor easily, it's the Skills category. Overall ratings you'll have to grab from in-game. Can't do it myself as 1) I don't have 2K12 installed on this PC, 2) can't be bothered enough to do much else other than run Eureqa on the data.

That's a good point. You'd think he'd be one of the first ones revealed, after cover players Kevin Durant and Blake Griffin. Speaking of which, Derrick Rose is also a cover player with a considerable fan following; I'd have thought his rating would be one of the first revealed, too.

That's a good point. You'd think he'd be one of the first ones revealed, after cover players Kevin Durant and Blake Griffin. Speaking of which, Derrick Rose is also a cover player with a considerable fan following; I'd have thought his rating would be one of the first revealed, too.

One reason of the lack of interest in Lebron's ratings, could be the general assumption that his ratings won't be much better (certainly not worse) than last year? KD was underrated last year IMO, so I was interested in his ratings. And rose will remain the same, unless they drop some points with his ACL injury, but that wouldn't make sense. And he's sort of 'out of the spotlight' due to his injury. And Melo had an astonishing run in the olympics.I don't know, but lebron's rating won't be a surprise anymore. That's why many rookies/ new legends are requested, the element of surprise? It's just a thought

I know overall ratings dont mean much but Kevin Love is not 89 worth man. He doesnt even have post moves. He is the best cleanup man in the NBA but he is not a reliable post threat. That means he is the best at gobbling rebounds and getting putbacks but he is not a go to guy when u want buckets late in the game. Also very good at 3s. They are probably going to give Aldridge just a 84 rating. Making him look like a bitch to the whole world.

bowdown wrote:I know overall ratings dont mean much but Kevin Love is not 89 worth man. He doesnt even have post moves. He is the best cleanup man in the NBA but he is not a reliable post threat. That means he is the best at gobbling rebounds and getting putbacks but he is not a go to guy when u want buckets late in the game. Also very good at 3s. They are probably going to give Aldridge just a 84 rating. Making him look like a bitch to the whole world.

I agree to you about Kevin Love and LaMarcus Aldridge 'cause LMA's better than both of Kevin Love and Blake Griffin but he's very underrated player...

Ronnie made a mistake there, it's his durability, if you check that screenshot one more time. I was a little suprised he made such an error, overall 55 is pretty much a scrub player and Grant was a starting SF last season for the Suns.

You guys should just understand the importance of positions in overall ratings.

Neither Rondo nor Love are overrated because if you look at what 2k values most on their positions (playmaking, onball D/rebounding, inside scoring) than these ratings are okay. Rondo has no shot, yes, but it's not that important for the overall rating of a PG in 2k games. Love is a rebounding beast and has good ratings in inside scoring because this is where he scores many of his points (next to shooting the three).

Sauru wrote:no way rondo is overrated at 90. outside of his jump shot he does everything you want a point to do and does it better than anyone else in the game.

Yeah I agree. He is the best pure Point Guard and the only thing he doesnt do well is outside shooting. Everything else, even his rebounding is stellar for his position.

And I understand about Aldridge now. He is a PF but his rebounding is not top notch. So the game probably docks him points for that. But his overall inside scoring attributes should be better than Love's even though Love maybe rated way higher overall.

One or two glaring weaknesses and a player's athleticism/dunking attributes can greatly affect their overall rating, with the end result not always being ideal. Players like Josh Smith often end up looking a least a little bit overrated, because their athletic and dunking ratings pull up their overall because they're not weighted any less in its calculation. Similarly, Steve Nash often appears underrated because he's not an outstanding athlete and his defense isn't the best in the league, so his overall is usually slightly lower than you'd like as far as indicating his value and rank among point guards. As you noted, Rondo's perimeter and free throw shooting drag him down a bit.

It's the bane of anyone making roster updates, so I can certainly sympathise with the developers here.

It is an Overall attribute after all. If it did disregard a players lesser attributes it wouldn't really serve the purpose of an overall attribute right? I always thought in addition to the regular OFF and DEF quick-glance attributes a SKILL attribute or something along those lines would be useful. But now I think the Signature Skill icons will do an even better job.

Sauru wrote:no way rondo is overrated at 90. outside of his jump shot he does everything you want a point to do and does it better than anyone else in the game.

Naw, Rondo is a hustle player and very over rated by the east coast/celtic bias. He has benefited from playing with hall of famers during his bloom. And everyone saw what a big market spotlight can do for a player with Jeremy Lin. Rondo dives for a loose ball against an old and crusty jason williams and everyone goes nuts... Derek Rose runs circles around Rondo and it's forgotten in two seconds. Oh, and don't take my word for it. How about the fact that no one even cared that he wasn't mentioned with being on the dream team by any player or coach. Yea Yea Yea, he plays on the Celtics with great team mates. Won a ring as a role player. And all common sense gets thrown out the window. He's a remarkable passer, a horrible leader, an even worse offensive player. Put him on the hornets or the bucks and he'd be an after thought.

By the way, I'm shocked that Grant Hill is rated 55 that is insanely low for his level of production.

I'd say, it's best to fiddle around with the player's editor, to get a feel of how overall is calculated. Pick a player that has a unique ability (f.ex. Anthony Morrow with his 3pt shooting) or better yet, create one, by maxing out the player's attributes (you can try, one at a time) and switching the player's position. But I'm sure most of y'all has already done this

Overall ratings are still in the game because the cpu trade AI takes into account the overall ratings of the players involved in a potential trade. As long as 2K doesn't change the game's trade logic the need for overall ratings will still be there.